Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed February 6, 2026 has been received, Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene (US 2017/0119095) in view of Aslani (US 2016/0278484).
Regarding Claim 1, Greene discloses a sole structure for an article of footwear, the sole structure (16) comprising: an outsole plate (32) having a first surface (i.e. top surface of 32) and a second surface (31) opposite the first surface (as seen in Fig.1), the outsole plate extending from a first end disposed in a forefoot region to a second end disposed in a heel region and opposite the first end (as seen in Fig.1), wherein a longitudinal axis (i.e. centerline of 32) extends from the first end to the second end; and a cushioning element (34A-D) configured to transition from an uncompressed state to a compressed state (para.41); wherein the cushioning element further includes a cavity (G4 above 80E)(as seen in Fig.2) wherein the cushioning element further includes a cavity (G4 above 80E)(as seen in Fig.2). Greene does not explicitly disclose the cushioning element is symmetrical about the longitudinal axis. However, Greene does teach that the cushioning element (34A-D) may be various shapes (para.50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cushioning element of Greene to be symmetrical about a longitudinal axis, in order to provide the optimum level of cushioning to a user’s foot. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct Greene such that the cushioning element is symmetrical about the longitudinal axis, since applicant has not disclosed that this solves any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a forefoot cushioning structure. In re Dailey and Eilers, 149 USPQ 47 (1966).
Greene does not disclose a first traction element, a second traction element, and a third traction element extending from the second surface of the outsole plate; and wherein at least one of the first traction element, the second traction element, and the third traction element is a central traction element. However, Aslani teaches a sole structure having an outsole plate (102) with a bottom surface (108), a cushioning element (174,178; para.69); a first traction element (136), a second traction element (112), and a third traction element (114) extending from the bottom surface (as seen in Fig.1); wherein the first traction element, the second traction element, and the third traction element are disposed within a cavity (void between 174 & 178) of the cushioning element, and wherein at least one of the first traction element, the second traction element, and the third traction element is a central traction element (as seen in Fig.2; 136 is a central traction element) disposed within a cavity of the cushioning element and others of the first traction element, the second traction element (112), and the third traction element (114) are a peripheral traction element (as seen in Fig.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outsole plate of Greene to include three traction elements, as taught by Aslani, in order to provide the user with enhanced traction when playing a sport. When in combination, Greene and Aslani teach wherein an amount of exposure of at least one of the traction elements varies based on compression or expansion of the cushioning element (i.e. 136 of Aslani would have more exposure when 30 of Greene is compressed and less exposure when 30 of Greene is uncompressed); and the second traction element and the third traction element are peripheral traction elements (of Aslani) bounding the cushioning element (i.e. placed in medial or lateral G1/G2 of Greene).
Regarding Claim 2, When in combination, Greene and Aslani teach a sole structure of claim 1, wherein the cushioning element (Greene: 30), the first traction element (136), the second traction element (112), and the third traction element (114) form a portion of a ground-contacting surface (as seen in Fig.1-2 of Greene and Fig.1 of Aslani).
Regarding Claim 4, Greene discloses a sole structure of claim 1, wherein the cushioning element (30) is a fluid-filled bladder (para.41).
Regarding Claim 5, Greene discloses a sole structure of claim 4, wherein the cushioning element includes a first barrier layer (70) and a second barrier layer (72)(para.51), and wherein the first barrier layer and the second barrier layer enclose an inner volume of the cushioning element, the inner volume filled with a pressurized gas (para.41 & 44).
Regarding Claim 6, Greene discloses a sole structure of claim 5, wherein outer surfaces (edges of bladder surrounding G4 above 80E) of the first barrier layer and outer surfaces of the second barrier layer bound the cavity (as seen in Fig.2).
Regarding Claim 7, Greene discloses a sole structure of claim 6, wherein the cavity is exposed to the environment, and wherein the cavity is not in fluid communication with the pressurized gas disposed within the inner volume (as seen in Fig.2, G4 above 80E is exposed to the environment and is not in fluid communication with 30).
Regarding Claim 8, When in combination, Greene and Aslani teach a sole structure of claim 7, wherein the central traction element (Aslani:136) extends through the cavity (Greene: G4 above 80E) of the cushioning element (Greene: as seen in Fig.2).
Regarding Claim 9, Greene discloses a sole structure of claim 8, wherein the cushioning element (30) is coupled to the second surface (31) of the outsole plate (as seen in Fig.1 & 3).
Regarding Claim 10, When in combination, Greene and Aslani teach a sole structure of claim 9, wherein compression of the cushioning element increases exposure of at least one of the traction elements (i.e. 136 of Aslani would have more exposure when 30 of Greene is compressed and less exposure when 30 of Greene is uncompressed).
Regarding Claim 11, When in combination, Greene and Aslani teach a sole structure of claim 9, wherein expansion of the cushioning element reduces exposure of at least one of the traction elements (i.e. 136 of Aslani would have more exposure when 30 of Greene is compressed and less exposure when 30 of Greene is uncompressed).
Regarding Claim 12, When in combination, Greene and Aslani teach a sole structure of claim 10, wherein in the uncompressed state (i.e. unweighted), the cushioning element exposes a first portion of the central traction element (i.e. 30 of Greene would expose the ground engaging surface of Aslani’s 136), and wherein in the compressed state (i.e. weighted), the cushioning element exposes a second portion of the central traction element (i.e. 136 of Aslani would have more exposure when 30 of Greene is compressed).
Regarding Claim 13, Greene discloses a sole structure of claim 1, wherein the cushioning element (30) includes an anterior portion disposed nearer an anterior end of the article of footwear and a posterior portion disposed nearer a posterior end of the article of footwear, and wherein the posterior portion and the anterior portion are in fluid communication with one another (See annotated Figure below; para.59-60).
PNG
media_image1.png
413
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Greene discloses a sole structure of claim 13, wherein in the compressed state (i.e. weighted by a user), the anterior portion extends a third distance (i.e. height of anterior portion) from the outsole plate, and the posterior portion extends a fourth distance (i.e. height of posterior portion) from the outsole plate (as seen in annotated Figure above & Fig.1; evenly distributed weight would equally compress the third and fourth distances).
Regarding Claim 15, Greene discloses a sole structure of claim 14, wherein in the compressed state, the third distance of the anterior portion is the same as the fourth distance of the posterior portion (as seen in Fig.1; evenly distributed weight would equally compress the third and fourth distances).
Regarding Claim 16, Greene discloses a sole structure of claim 14, wherein in the compressed state (i.e. weighted by a user), the third distance of the anterior portion is different from the fourth distance of the posterior portion (i.e. if the anterior portion is weighted during toe-off while the posterior portion remains unweighted, the third distance will be different from the fourth distance).
Regarding Claim 17, Greene discloses a sole structure of claim 1, wherein the cushioning element (30) includes an outer membrane (33)(para.42).
Regarding Claim 18, Aslani further teaches a sole structure of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first, second, or third traction elements (136) is a cleat (para.60).
Regarding Claim 19, Aslani further teaches a sole structure of claim 18, wherein the cleat includes one or more of a TPU, polyurethane nylon material, carbon fiber, and rubber (para.62).
Regarding Claim 20, Greene discloses an article of footwear comprising: an upper (12) having an anterior end disposed in a forefoot region and a posterior end disposed in a heel region (as seen in Fig.1); and a sole structure (16) extending from the posterior end to the anterior end, the sole structure further comprising: an outsole plate (32) extending from the posterior end to the anterior end; and a cushioning element (34A-D; para.41) configured to transition between a compressed state (i.e. weighted) and an uncompressed state (i.e. unweighted), the cushioning element disposed solely in the forefoot region (as seen in Fig.2; 34A-D is disposed solely in the forefoot region and sealed off at 84B & 84C, para.63), and the cushioning element extending from the outsole plate (as seen in Fig.1), wherein the cushioning element includes a cavity (G4 above 80E)(as seen in Fig.2). Greene does not disclose a plurality of traction elements extending from the outsole plate, the plurality of traction elements including at least one central traction element and one or more peripheral traction elements. However, Aslani teaches a sole structure having an outsole plate (102) with a bottom surface (108), a cushioning element (174,178; para.69), a plurality of traction elements (112,114,136) extending from the outsole plate, the a plurality of traction elements including at least one central traction element (136) extending from the bottom surface, and one or more peripheral traction elements (112,114)(as seen in Fig.1 & 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outsole plate of Greene to include one or more traction elements, as taught by Aslani, in order to provide the user with enhanced traction when playing a sport. When in combination, Greene and Alsani teach the central traction element disposed within the cavity of the cushioning element such that interior portions of the cushioning element surrounding the cavity are not in direct contact with the central traction element.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the newly modified ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN E LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-3267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00am-4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights